On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 06:28:42AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2000 at 03:43:50PM -0800, Darren O. Benham wrote:
> > If either is written in, I gladly revoke my objections because I agree with
> > the concept...
>
> Here is an amended version of the
Well... either or...
Spell it out in the policy so that console apps provide a package that
doesn't DEPEND on xbase-clients... either by requiring two packages, on
that does and one that doesn't... or by encasing the required font-calls in
if statements like update-menus...
If either is written i
There is one part of this that I object to...
The requirement that xbase-clients be installed. In a console-only
environment, the admin shouldn't be forced to install a bunch of xclient
apps. There is atleast one console program that is following this
proceedure: bitchx.
Instead, I'd rather see
So (whoever was going to do this) filing bugs against packages for being in
base section is premature until the amendment has been actually accepted
into policy...
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 10:40:36AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Darren O. Benham wrote:
> > And policy does or does not dictate
And policy does or does not dictate sections?
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:08:11AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Darren O. Benham wrote, about the removal of the base section:
> > Is this, basicly, a part of policy now?
>
> Actually, policy is quite out of date on the issue:
>
>
On Thu, Oct 28, 1999 at 04:26:50PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> severity 39830 normal
> retitle 39830 [AMENDMENT 28/10/1999] get rid of undocumented(7) symlinks
> thanks
>
> I proposed to change the "Manual pages" section of our policy to get
> rid of the undocumented(7) symlinks.
>
> This pr
Lintian is already ready to do rudimentary checks based on the debhelper
implementation.
On Fri, Sep 24, 1999 at 01:16:18AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > The technical committee has been asked to resolve the issue of what to do
> > with /usr/share/doc. I propose we actually adopt their decision
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 03:05:47AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > While everybody involved in this discussions sits and goes in circles, the
> > rest of the project is going to pass -policy by and just impliment policy
> > as it states in the policy manual and by the time the people who get t
Everybody in this argument about what/who/etc to handle the transition (if
any) between /usr/doc to /usr/share/doc...
To date, there are 118 packages on master who are using, in some form,
/usr/share/doc...
As time goes on, more packages will "just change". Many of the developers
don't read -pol
> Just one question, however: Should we keep the same sections? Data will
> surely have a different repartition of contains than main and maybe will
> should think about the way we'll place things before they get too big
> to move around.
Probably... I just don't want to make it part of the policy/
On Mon, Jul 19, 1999 at 10:55:57PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Darren" == Darren O Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Darren> I would say only DFSG data. Anything on our ftp site needs
> Darren> to have unrestricted redistribution,
ted redistribution.
>
> On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Darren O. Benham wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:35:04PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Data section (#38902)
> > > * Stalled for 1 week.
> > > * Proposed on 3 Jun 1999 by Darren O. Benham; seconded b
Actually, I think developer disputes are handled by the technical
committee. However, how and when to close bugs is a behavioral thing
governing how a developer is supposed to behave with the Debian
organization, would that not be policy?
On Sat, Jul 17, 1999 at 02:20:08AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava
Sound good to me. That was one of the reasons I asked if anybody had
objections last week(ly summary).
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 03:27:13PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Darren O. Benham wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:35:04PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Data section (#38902)
On Fri, Jul 16, 1999 at 02:35:04PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Data section (#38902)
> * Stalled for 1 week.
> * Proposed on 3 Jun 1999 by Darren O. Benham; seconded by Peter S
> Galbraith, Peter Makholm and Peter Makholm.
> * "Since there is interest in packaging censu
On Thu, Jul 08, 1999 at 12:10:46PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> To deal with a wishlist bug with which I agree, I'm going to replace the
> LGPL in base-files by the new "Lesser GNU Public License", which is also
> called "LGPL". Since the new LGPL is the successor of the old LGPL, I
> w
Has anyone tried to package something that doesn't really get installed?
What I mean...
I've got a few wcripts I use to generate email responses from CVS when
something gets checked in. This would be, I think, neat to offer to others
but since the scripts get put into CVSROOT replacing some of th
Is there a policy ruling n this?
- Forwarded message from Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
MBOX-Line: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 05 17:48:10 1999
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: "Darren O. Benh
On Sun, Jul 04, 1999 at 02:27:01AM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> This is principally the right way (according to FHS), but we cannot
> recompile all packages now but we need a smooth way from one directory
> to the other.
Why do we need a smooth way? Some packages (including many of mine at th
On Fri, Jul 02, 1999 at 01:42:58PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Data section (#38902)
> * Under discussion.
> * Proposed on 3 Jun 1999 by Darren O. Benham; seconded by Peter S
> Galbraith.
I thought there was another second...??
> * "Since there is interest in packagi
On Wed, Jun 30, 1999 at 12:47:59PM -0700, karlheg wrote:
>
> Do all of us have an @debian.org mailing address that is functional?
> I think EVERY developer who has upload writes ought to have that.
> Policy ought to dictate it; even if it's a forward (.qmail) drop.
there people who do not... un
t; named data, that will hold non-program related data.
>
and
> Data section (#38902)
> * Stalled for 2 weeks.
> * Proposed on 3 Jun 1999 by Darren O. Benham.
> * "Since there is interest in packaging census data, maps, genome
> data and other hug
On Sat, Jun 05, 1999 at 02:47:05AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> As some people may have noted we're in the process of creating
> security.debian.org, which will be a location where security
> fixes are installed as fast as possible, without having to
> wait for a daily dinstall and mirror r
On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 06:46:47PM -0400, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
> > The data section would be governed by the following rules:
> > - No package can depend on a package in data.
>
> Can *solely* depends on a package in data. ORed Depends, if
> it's also resolved by a default package in main, is goo
On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 04:29:26PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> bible-kjv-text is the data, bible-kjv the program.
>
> bible-kjv could theoretically handle any text in the same way as the bible,
> but no other text has been formatted for it to work on.
If were as strict as Brandon says... it's u
On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 09:27:57AM +0100, Edward Betts wrote:
> Where does that leave bible-kjv, bible-kjv-text and verse?
Personally, I view them as part of the bible and verse program... the
second point should be able to make each case subjective..
>
> Can a package in main recommend a packag
On Thu, Jun 03, 1999 at 07:33:03PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> A few additional rules for your consideration:
>
> - The data directory shouldn't be synced to debian releases, and ought
> to be paralled to dists, not main/contrib/non-free.
> (Since there are no executables, what's the benef
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
This is Fabian's proposal with a few modifications. The last proposal was
not put into the BTS and then there was talk of waiting for Wichert's
proposal. I've talked with our DPL and he doesn't have one.. not on this
topic. So.. here it is again and for
It think bug 26915 can be closed... the logo license was settled by General
Resolution.
--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=
* http://benham.net/index.html<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< *
* ---
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 12:41:41PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> More than a year ago, Ian posted these rules governing
> disputes about bug reports. I found these acceptable, though I am
> somewhat leery of making thse _policy_. I would be happier if these
> were put togeth
On Sun, May 30, 1999 at 02:23:44AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I guess that this last comment is the reason that this proposal has
> been marked as stalled. I would suggest that we plan to adopt the FHS
> anyway, pating attention to the changes which will appear in FHS 2.1,
> as available in the
On Thu, May 27, 1999 at 01:56:19PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Manoj, you might want to clean this up a little (a lot of it reads as
> a proposal rather than a procedure) and make it accessible from the
> developer's corner. All in your copious free time, of course.
Or put it in the policy manu
Propose this though the -policy mechanism...
On Wed, May 26, 1999 at 05:37:15PM -0400, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
> Although I tend to agreed with Joseph on this point, I also think that
> the main problem is still the same as with the Anarchy FAQ: No other
> cool place (personal web page is not the an
On Fri, May 07, 1999 at 02:47:57PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
> >>"Gord" == Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Manoj Srivastava writes:
> MS> I formally ask for seconds to this objection to this
> MS> proposal.
>
> Gord> If you get seconders, then I will withdraw
On Thu, May 06, 1999 at 06:31:43AM -0600, Gordon Matzigkeit wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
It is a shame to think that -policy might even have to resort to something
like this because some people can't keep their discussions focused on
issues or even know when a discussion has
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 06:47:53PM -0400, Steve Dunham wrote:
> I really, really don't like the addition of /share to the root
> directory. One alternative would be a directory under /lib
> (e.g. /lib/grub) for the pristine copy of stage[12] or in an
> additional directory under /boot (e.g. have b
On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 05:21:55PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Eh? You can't be a Debian developer without an account on master, if Lars
Sure you can. Lars is.
> How are you going to do it any other way, the only thing every maintainer
> has to do is access the machines, some people never upl
On Sun, Mar 28, 1999 at 02:47:37PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I am hoping to get a mechanism to detect absent maintainers as we move to
> having our maintainer database in a directory. My current thought is to
> just turn on shadow password aging, you have to set your password once a
> year or
Just what is "official" Debain policy?
"Everyone" says we want to switch to FHS.
There are issues concerning the FHS.
I'm setting up new packages.
Am I supposed to use the FHS that "we want to switch to" or the FSSTND that
we used to have... or anything I damn well please?
39 matches
Mail list logo
